I also know almost nothing about US tax law. Call me a cynic but it seems plausible that lots (nearly all?) of the people putting their money into foundations and not spending it are doing so for tax reasons, rather than because they have a sincere concern for the longterm future.
As a communications point, this does make me wonder if longtermist philanthropists who hypothetical campaigned for such a ‘loophole’ to remain open will, by extension, be seen as unscrupulous tax dodgers.
(These are my personal views, not Founders Pledge’s.)
I’m out of my depth here too, but there are rules around what DAFs can and can’t grant to. My understanding is that once the money is in the DAF, it is committed to the charitable sector at some point.
The DAF-critical people in the NYT article are assuming that it’s better to donate money now than in the future. That could be wrong even for people who aren’t longtermists, like if you think we’re learning more about how to best have an impact in the animal welfare or development space over time. For the Investing to Give report FP surveyed grantmakers from multiple worldviews about how they expected the cost-effectiveness of the best giving opportunities in their field to change over time. Most expected there to be better opportunities in the future (see section 2.5 of the full report).
As a community that has thought quite a bit about the timing of donations, I do think we have something to contribute to this conversation. I also recognize the communications risks. But doubling the disbursement requirements for private foundations seems like it could have serious implications for EA giving. I’d at least be interested in seeing somebody think through whether those implications are serious enough that it’s worth getting involved.
I know you were explicit about these being your views and not Founders Pledge’s, but is there anyone better placed to think through those implications than Founders Pledge? And similarly, it seems like Founders Pledge would be one of the most natural organisations to advocate against limits on patient philanthropy, given the work on the long-term investment fund.
I also know almost nothing about US tax law. Call me a cynic but it seems plausible that lots (nearly all?) of the people putting their money into foundations and not spending it are doing so for tax reasons, rather than because they have a sincere concern for the longterm future.
As a communications point, this does make me wonder if longtermist philanthropists who hypothetical campaigned for such a ‘loophole’ to remain open will, by extension, be seen as unscrupulous tax dodgers.
(These are my personal views, not Founders Pledge’s.)
I’m out of my depth here too, but there are rules around what DAFs can and can’t grant to. My understanding is that once the money is in the DAF, it is committed to the charitable sector at some point.
The DAF-critical people in the NYT article are assuming that it’s better to donate money now than in the future. That could be wrong even for people who aren’t longtermists, like if you think we’re learning more about how to best have an impact in the animal welfare or development space over time. For the Investing to Give report FP surveyed grantmakers from multiple worldviews about how they expected the cost-effectiveness of the best giving opportunities in their field to change over time. Most expected there to be better opportunities in the future (see section 2.5 of the full report).
As a community that has thought quite a bit about the timing of donations, I do think we have something to contribute to this conversation. I also recognize the communications risks. But doubling the disbursement requirements for private foundations seems like it could have serious implications for EA giving. I’d at least be interested in seeing somebody think through whether those implications are serious enough that it’s worth getting involved.
I know you were explicit about these being your views and not Founders Pledge’s, but is there anyone better placed to think through those implications than Founders Pledge? And similarly, it seems like Founders Pledge would be one of the most natural organisations to advocate against limits on patient philanthropy, given the work on the long-term investment fund.